Environment Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This one, at line 12 on page 78, gives clear legislative direction to the agency to consult indigenous people who are affected by the project. It prevents an ad hoc approach to consultation.

This was raised by a number of first nations. They thought it was important enough to make the point that it is not sufficient simply to say consult with indigenous peoples. It must specify “that may be affected by the carrying out of the designated project”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It's adding an extra bit on to proposed paragraph 156(1)(a).

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

A perfect example is Site C.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Fair enough.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I guess first nations in Alberta and Métis will continue not to be consulted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're on LIB-67.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

The essence of this amendment is that it would allow the impact assessment agency of Canada to establish monitoring committees in addition to other types of bodies. It's something we've heard from stakeholders in terms of the importance of effective follow-up and adaptive management for projects.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're on LIB-69.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

In the context of further amendments to improve the regional assessment system, in LIB-69 we're suggesting in response to stakeholder concerns that we ensure rigorous assessments are done and their findings are used.

We had stakeholder comments around this issue of allowing assessments to benefit from expert advice. This is going to enable expert advice in the context of regional and strategic assessments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, so it's setting a context.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on to Ms. May's PV-79.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, this amendment occurs on page 78, at line 31. Again, this is based on evidence that came to us through the Assembly of First Nations. In reference to the appointment of people with relevant knowledge or experience on an expert committee, proposed subsection 157(2) says:

The membership of the committee must include at least one Indigenous person.

My amendment would ensure that it include “one indigenous person who is a member of a First Nation, one Métis person and one Inuit person”. In other words, these are not in the alternative. This is an amendment to ensure that there is an indigenous person representing southern first nations, the southern part of Canada; one Métis person; and one Inuit representative or Inuk member on the panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Go ahead, John.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

We've heard from indigenous peoples and organizations that have given us a range of comments on the ways that this bill can support reconciliation. It's important to note that we're looking at how we can address calls for a distinctions-based approach. The intent would be to ensure key committees, including the impact assessment agency's advisory committee on the interests and concerns of indigenous peoples, include members who can represent the interests of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.

We have other motions that speak to that, but I just want to get that on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Reid has asked for a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on amendment LIB-70.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

This amendment does what I was just speaking to in that this is one of those amendments that bring forward the distinctions-based approach by ensuring that the impact assessment agency's advisory committee will address calls regarding the interests and concerns of indigenous peoples including first nations, Inuit, and Métis members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Reid has asked for a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

We now move to amendment CPC-9. If it is adopted, amendments CPC-9.1 and LIB-71 cannot be moved as there will be a line conflict.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Chair, might I address this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Absolutely.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

This is my moment in the sun. I'm very excited.

As you can see, this is a bit more of a technical amendment that goes on for several paragraphs and would add several paragraphs into the bill. We're trying to provide additional clarity to the transition provisions, which are going to allow for greater predictability so that those who are advocating a new activity can adequately prepare for the environmental assessment knowing what the process is and not having to worry about a new process being switched out at some point in the future.

I do note the minister has indicated that he's looking for timelines that are predictable and reasonable for Canadian energy projects, so I would make the modest suggestion to my Liberal colleagues that this actually should fit in very well with their stated objectives. I think we all understand that investors do need to have shorter timelines and greater certainty to act. That's just how investors work. They go where they can get a predictable return. I think these are solid reasons for supporting this particular amendment.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Chair, I think our amendments LIB-71, LIB-72, and LIB-73 will also address the objectives that Mr. Reid put forward, so we will be addressing those in our upcoming amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Fair enough.

Mr. Reid would like a recorded vote on CPC-9.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We move to amendment CPC-9.1.

It's back to you, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

This one was proposed by our colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. What can I say? I think this one just speaks for itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That made that very easy.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Of course, we want a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])